Michael's several analogies between physical and intellectual property can be dismissed for the many reasons given by Cheerskep.
And his concern for an "accurate reproduction" should be dismissed as well -- at least as involving anything other than the reputation of the original writer or artist. Because alterations can be better, or worse, or just different from the original -- so no harm is necessarily done by making them. (it was a legal dispute over an Obama poster that started this thread -- and who is to say that the popular alteration is any worse than the original photograph ?) Haven't we all learned, by now, that authenticity is no guarantee for quality. (for example: the Otto Munch exhibit now at the A.I.C. contains a scaled down version of Rodin's "The Kiss". It's awful -- just as bad as the cheesy catastrophe offered for sale online from statue.com. Did Rodin authorize either of those versions ? Who knows - who cares - the quality is just as bad regardless. It seems that Rodin had a Laissez-faire attidude towards his work. He made the best originals that he could - but then he let his workshop make whatever reproductions could be sold. And I don't think his reputation has suffered a bit for it. ) We can expect that intellectual property will be adjusted, over time, to suit the taste (good or bad) of various audiences. I don't see any harm there, as long the original version , if it still exists, is not destroyed. So the only real issues regarding copyright are those that are personal: i.e. the finances and reputation of the artist. Those are indeed important -- but against those concerns, we should also consider the concerns of the public -- not just as a body politic -- but as a civilization of values, ideals, and standards that continually needs to renew itself through educational experiences. Concerning the reproductions that art museums are putting online -- The Louvre claims that's it's got everything (30,000 pieces) up -- and it is does a good job - with 33k images as well as additional detail shots and alternative views of sculpture. The Chicago museum is about half-way towards putting everything online --but no additional details views are offered, and 33k is not really very big. The British Museum is currently only showing the highlights of their collection (2000 pieces) - but the size is about 50k -- and if you sign up, they promise to send to you 250k images as requested. (WOW!) The Uffizi site says that it offers a room-by-room virtual tour of its collection -- but, of course, being in Italy, it doesn't work today, come back tomorrow. The Hermitage also offers highlights of the collection -- and they are zoomable up to 160k (very nice) . And finally, the Prado may be the best -- since it promises to eventually put everything online -- and their images are zoomable up to 2 meg. (incredible!) And the worst would be exemplifed by the Cleveland Museum -- which only shows a part of its collection at 16kb -- but for $30 each, users can purchase an 8X10 glossy print. I.e, they want the images taken from their collection to be yet another profit center -- just like the museum book store. Ouch! ____________________________________________________________ Free information on finding a medical malpractice lawyer to file your case. Click now. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxaIwf40WVMrsZHhE7sR7ym8h g77BGINwwqPC89dQ9XYWzbbFlu7vy/
